extending levers

[greendoor]

preoccupied - just saw your pm today, sorry i didn't notice this before. I can't add much, because i don't really see how this might work.

I try to eliminate as much maths as possible, and reduce ideas down to the simplest principle and then see if it seems logical. The "maths" that we use wasn't really formalised in Bessler's day, and most of our modern physics "laws" are firmly based on the assumption that perpetual motion is impossible. Therefore the maths tends to go around in circles, ultimately supporting the original assumption that it's not going to work.

I'm very interested in (among others) Pequaide's work, which shows how there appears to be some serious flaws in "the maths", and that there is reason to believe that it is possible to "create energy" by looking at the maths a little differently.

I mentioned above how trading Force for Distance is futile. What I call "Energy Maths" is firmly based on Work being Force x Distance.

However, I believe that trading Force for Time opens up some exciting possibilities. This is what I call "Momentum Maths" - which equates to Force x Time. Time is something we can trade with ...

Think about a falling object: the Force of gravity (the attraction between this Mass and the Earth's mass) is constantly available: before, during and after free-fall. The downwards Force never goes away. That Force can Accelerate Mass and cause it to continuously increase in Velocity (and Energy increases with the square of Velocity). So what stops it from continuously accelerating mass and creating unlimited energy? The ground, obviously. So we tend to measure Height as the limiting factor. Potential Energy is Mass elevated to a Height. We have defined Energy around this fixed limitation. Force x Distance.

But an alternative way of looking at this is Force x Time. Time runs out when we hit the ground. But there is no limit to how long we have to take to reach the ground. We can take as long as we want to take, and extend the amount of Force x Time available for acceleration.

So using Energy maths - a mass falling a fixed Height represents a fixed amount of Energy, and it takes an equal or greater amount of energy to restore it to the original Height. Most ideas for perpetual motion is beating the same old dead horse. It's still not going to move.

But if we make special designs that deliberately exploit Time, we can make variable amounts of Momentum by allowing a small mass to accelerate a very heavy mass system over a relatively long period of time. (Relative to free fall - it can still be rapid enough).

When I discovered that a fixed mass falling a fixed height can generate variable amounts of Momentum - it was a major eye-opener.

Falling slowly is virtually the same as falling from a greater height. The Force of gravity is essentially exactly the same until we hit the ground. So extending the Time of fall (but obviously not wasting the Force with friction - actually using it all to Accelerate a Mass system ...)

A lot of people here think "so what"? Momentum is dismissed as being virtually useless, because we are brainwashed with Energy thinking.

But Momentum is a conserved quantity. We can convert an amount of Force x Time into a proportional amount of Force x Time. So never underestimate what you can do with large, variable amounts of Momentum ...

Go to go, but I think there are designs which can work. I'm just not seeing it here at the moment ...

[Tarsier79]

I'm very interested in (among others) Pequaide's work, which shows how there appears to be some serious flaws in "the maths"

I don't think there are flaws there, just missing maths not taken into account.

But there is no limit to how long we have to take to reach the ground

Forcing the weight to take longer to reach the ground means extracting less energy per second, but the same amount over the distance.

Momentum is conserved when using equal weights, as far as I know we have not seen any repeatable or definite proof of energy gain through momentum transfer.

[daxwc]

Quote:

But there is no limit to how long we have to take to reach the ground

Forcing the weight to take longer to reach the ground means extracting less energy per second, but the same amount over the distance.

Momentum is conserved when using equal weights, as far as I know we have not seen any repeatable or definite proof of energy gain through momentum transfer.

Imagine a wheel on a clutch bearing and two masses A + B on opposite sides, if A rises very quickly and B very slowly which way will the wheel rotate? That is assuming the masses take their weight off the wheel at 12PM every half rotation and wait for the other mass to reach 6pm.

[preoccupied]

I have NEW animation! The weights are in the positive torque zone from the previous animation.

[preoccupied]

This is a Vesica Pisces version of the wheel like Grimer mentioned. I drew it because the leverage on the previous animation was not in a good position. The previous animation has 7.07 in it because the point where the weight is lifted is at the far end of the first lever and not the level connection piece. The angle of the lifting lever in this animation is slightly more steep than the falling lever but I think there could be a point where there is positive torque but I would have to calculate it.

[Tarsier79]

I suspect the extra distance the vertical has to move will be enough to negate the positive torque.

Leverage works, because a weight further weight falls a greater distance than the weight it is levering. Without this distance, you lose advantage.

[preoccupied]

5+4.62+4.62=14.24
22.5 degrees
Different degree position for the straight edge.
3.54 is the distance away the vertical incline is 1.91 is the vertical length when the curved path is at 22.5 degrees.
4.574227463870181 when curved path is at 22.5 degrees
4.57+3.54+4.57=12.68

The math shows that if the lever sits at 22.5 degrees it can lift a weight on a straight edge using another lever at a slightly steeper angle where the weight would roll over to the vertical incline position on a ramp. This is very exciting. This wheel works according to the math. Friction is not accounted for but there is ways around having too much friction, I think.

The math says it would work! Somebody correct me! Or I might get a big head about figuring out how to overbalance something. ha

EDIT I actually got 4.45 not 4.57
EDIT typo I meant 4.35
EDIT no wait it was 4.57 I had more than one number at one time

[Grimer]

How about arranging things so that instead of one weight describing a clockwise path and the other a counter clockwise path they both describe the same path; both CW or both CCW.

Then you would have the whole thing turning to maintain angular momentum.

[preoccupied]

Now if both circles were moving they would be moving in the same direction in angular momentum like Grimer said. The important thing that I see is lifting a pair of identical weights past where they are dropped using gravity.

[preoccupied]

http://www.free-energy.ws/veljko-milkovic.html
At first when I looked at veliko milkovic’s pendulum I thought he was exchanging distance for leverage. I think I was right.

I want to know if a pendulum can push another pendulum and vise versa. I want one pendulum to push another pendulum 20% further than it swings on one side and then switch roles. The first pendulum would start 20% more of an angle upwards than the other pendulum at the start. I really don’t think it would work as I animated it. I don’t think vljko milkovic makes pumping water easier either. Pumping water is easy anyways with a long enough lever. Like more water is pumped per stroke of a straight lever than a smaller partial swing of the lever so I think there was an illusion that vljko milkkovic’s pendulum made water pumping easier.

My previous calculations on the curved and straight edge were false. See thread Math says it's overbalanced for details about my miscalculations.